Posts

Shouldn't there be a Chinese translation of Human Compatible? 2020-10-09T08:47:55.760Z · score: 19 (9 votes)
Should some variant of longtermism identify as a religion? 2020-09-11T05:02:43.740Z · score: 20 (7 votes)
Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust 2020-09-06T02:08:54.766Z · score: 49 (14 votes)
Investment is a useful societal mechanism for getting new things made. Stock trading shares some functionality with investment, but seems very very inefficient, at that? 2020-08-24T01:18:19.808Z · score: 8 (2 votes)
misc raw responses to a tract of Critical Rationalism 2020-08-14T11:53:10.634Z · score: 22 (8 votes)
A speculative incentive design: self-determined price commitments as a way of averting monopoly 2020-04-28T07:44:52.440Z · score: 5 (3 votes)
MakoYass's Shortform 2020-04-19T00:12:46.448Z · score: 5 (1 votes)
Being right isn't enough. Confidence is very important. 2020-04-07T01:10:52.517Z · score: 12 (5 votes)
Thoughts about Dr Stone and Mythology 2020-02-25T01:51:29.519Z · score: 18 (11 votes)
When would an agent do something different as a result of believing the many worlds theory? 2019-12-15T01:02:40.952Z · score: 12 (6 votes)
What do the Charter Cities Institute likely mean when they refer to long term problems with the use of eminent domain? 2019-12-08T00:53:44.933Z · score: 7 (2 votes)
Mako's Notes from Skeptoid's 13 Hour 13th Birthday Stream 2019-10-06T09:43:32.464Z · score: 6 (2 votes)
The Transparent Society: A radical transformation that we should probably undergo 2019-09-03T02:27:21.498Z · score: 8 (6 votes)
Lana Wachowski is doing a new Matrix movie 2019-08-21T00:47:40.521Z · score: 5 (1 votes)
Prokaryote Multiverse. An argument that potential simulators do not have significantly more complex physics than ours 2019-08-18T04:22:53.879Z · score: -1 (8 votes)
Can we really prevent all warming for less than 10B$ with the mostly side-effect free geoengineering technique of Marine Cloud Brightening? 2019-08-05T00:12:14.630Z · score: 83 (50 votes)
Will autonomous cars be more economical/efficient as shared urban transit than busses or trains, and by how much? What's some good research on this? 2019-07-31T00:16:59.415Z · score: 10 (5 votes)
If I knew how to make an omohundru optimizer, would I be able to do anything good with that knowledge? 2019-07-12T01:40:48.999Z · score: 5 (3 votes)
In physical eschatology, is Aestivation a sound strategy? 2019-06-17T07:27:31.527Z · score: 18 (5 votes)
Scrying for outcomes where the problem of deepfakes has been solved 2019-04-15T04:45:18.558Z · score: 28 (15 votes)
I found a wild explanation for two big anomalies in metaphysics then became very doubtful of it 2019-04-01T03:19:44.080Z · score: 20 (7 votes)
Is there a.. more exact.. way of scoring a predictor's calibration? 2019-01-16T08:19:15.744Z · score: 22 (4 votes)
The Mirror Chamber: A short story exploring the anthropic measure function and why it can matter 2019-01-11T22:26:29.887Z · score: 26 (8 votes)
The end of public transportation. The future of public transportation. 2018-02-09T21:51:16.080Z · score: 7 (7 votes)
Principia Compat. The potential Importance of Multiverse Theory 2016-02-02T04:22:06.876Z · score: 0 (14 votes)

Comments

Comment by makoyass on Objective Dog Ratings: The Shiba Inu · 2020-10-22T23:09:47.338Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I greatly respect the Shiba as it is clearly possesses a will of its own.

It is one of the most agenty dogs.

​For example, some Shiba Inus will emit a light Shiba scream simply if you give them the softest of "pinches" or pull on their collar in a way they don't like. 

Most dogs just wont tell you when you're doing something they don't like very much, like this. It's much better when our friends are honest about what they want, especially our animal friends, whose minds are the hardest for us to read.

Comment by makoyass on The Parable of Predict-O-Matic · 2020-10-22T22:04:10.638Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Update: I find that I'm still using "construction".

I note that it would agree will with the word "construct". Most social constructs are things that are true because we believe in them, subjunctively sustained. There's a bit of a negative vibe on "construct", but it's so neurotic there's no way it can survive and mostly it's just trying to say "we can change it! It's our choice!" which is true.

Comment by makoyass on What are some beautiful, rationalist artworks? · 2020-10-20T08:56:34.642Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

It doesn't look like a permanent curtailment if humans are still living and the artifacts of the magic of old are still there to inspire them.

Comment by makoyass on What are some beautiful, rationalist artworks? · 2020-10-19T22:52:27.480Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

This would be much stronger if there weren't a surviving human figure (who can somehow afford to feed a horse, no less!) in the scene. I'm not sure this is what extinction risk looks like at all

Comment by makoyass on Industrial literacy · 2020-10-14T06:18:00.895Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

It's about degrees of understanding, of course, but it should be mentioned that our lives will always be greatly enriched by the bizarre fact that we can use technologies we have no understanding of, and there is no such test. No one knows how a pencil is made. We float every day over an inscrutable river of magic maintained by a people we've never met.

I sometimes wonder if this is the reason advanced ancient technology is such a popular theme in contemporary fantasy media. All of the technology we interact with might as well be a product of some lost civilization, because we know that we will never meet most of the people who know how to make it all, if it breaks we can't fix it, and we know that their tradition is separate from ours and traced back centuries into the history of science and technology that we might never learn. If we did meet them, we know that we wouldn't have time to learn the whole craft from them. They are, in a sense, necessarily absent from our lives. We only see their artifacts.

Somehow, their artifacts keep working and abounding without them and that miracle is hard to get used to, so maybe we write stories about it, frame it in the most basally digestible anthropic terms, to help us to process it.

Comment by makoyass on Shouldn't there be a Chinese translation of Human Compatible? · 2020-10-12T22:37:49.948Z · score: 11 (2 votes) · LW · GW

If so, I think he's wrong here. The book may lead them to realize that unaligned AGI doesn't actually constitute an improvement in capabilities. It's the creation of a new enemy. A bridge that might fall down is not a useful bridge and a successful military power, informed of that, wouldn't want to build it.

It's in no party's interests to create AGI that isn't aligned with at least the people overseeing the research project.

An AGI aligned with a few living humans is generally going to lead to better outcomes than an AGI aligned with nobody at all, there is enough shared, to know that, and no one coherently extrapolated is as crass or parochial as the people we are now. Alignment theory should be promoted with every party.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-10-02T23:32:48.806Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Incentive problem: Separating one's output into neat categories is not always in a one's interests, and I may be naive to expect people to want to do it. The prospect of capitalizing on the audience you've built up by being on-brand by befouling your posts with unrelated political content/self-promotion is probably most of the point of using social media for most people.

I suppose in this case, it might be necessary to move away from promoting ideal social configurations then waiting for people to purely altruistically embody them, cause they wont, and focus more on promoting evolution over materially viable configurations. But of course if you foster a culture of relying on blind iteration you will end up stuck in a molochean equilibrium so there's going to need to be a balance.

Comment by makoyass on The rationalist community's location problem · 2020-09-24T22:16:07.793Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

it's almost certainly still better to live here than in a town where people fly Confederate flags and openly carry guns

I do not really like lenient gun laws, but I haven't gotten the impression that it's especially unsafe to live in those places? Also not sure free-thinkers in general mind being around their outgroup all that much.

 

schools

If you're forming a largish intentional community, running schooling ourselves would be a lot easier than it normally is, we can pool resources, have different people teach different subjects. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a consensus among parents willing to move for community that we do not need state schools.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-24T05:58:17.941Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

1: A continuous process of presences on each side endorsing their own side and unendorsing presences of the other side when they notice them posting incorrect things. An automated process may notice the split in the endorsement relations, and recommend naming uh, subtags (now starting to really doubt that calling them 'tags' instead of 'sets' was a good idea); tags with more specific meanings.

2: Maybe marginal yeah, someone else will have to apply the more specific indian food tag if they don't want to do it, which shouldn't end up being very much work. In exchange they get to take credit for the tagging and gain influence over the indian food genre.

Comment by makoyass on What happens if you drink acetone? · 2020-09-17T00:17:34.686Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

It's a relief to see that someone is finally speaking the truth about Acetone.

Comment by makoyass on MakoYass's Shortform · 2020-09-15T20:49:38.176Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I've never been mad at elon for not having decision theoretic alignmentism. I wonder, should I be mad. Should I be mad about the fact that he has never talked to eliezer (eliezer said that in passing a year or two ago on twitter) even though he totally could whenever he wanted.

Also, what happened at OpenAI? He appointed some people to solve the alignment problem, I think we can infer that they told him, "you've misunderstood something and the approach you're advocating (proliferate the technology?) wouldn't really be all that helpful", and he responded badly to that? They did not reach mutual understanding?

Comment by makoyass on Should some variant of longtermism identify as a religion? · 2020-09-13T10:31:27.287Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Many don't.

I should add, most of the longtermist projects I could imagine initiating in NZ would help people in the present, but I'm not sure how how much of that is a result of me limiting my hopes to fit through the overton window. I should think more about that.

Comment by makoyass on What's Wrong with Social Science and How to Fix It: Reflections After Reading 2578 Papers · 2020-09-13T03:01:05.852Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

some method of incentivizing novelty / importance

Lesswrong upvote count.

Slightly more seriously: Propagation through the academic segments of centerless curation networks. The author might be anticipating continued advances in social media technology, conventions of use, and uptake. Uptake and improvements in conventions of use, at least, seem to be visibly occuring. Advances in technology seem less assured, but I will do what I can.

Comment by makoyass on Should some variant of longtermism identify as a religion? · 2020-09-12T03:29:33.833Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Setting aside disagreements about what aspects of religions makes it practical to distinguishing them from other kinds of organizations, or about whether longtermism is on a trajectory to develop those

that's between you and the tax man. 

And no one else? It seems likely that this conversation with the tax man will need to involve other people, via a requirement that the variant publicly identifying as a religion somewhere, or via at least one published text that analyses the group as a religion (which I'd probably have to write).

Although skimming NZ's laws, it does seem as if the texts we have might already be enough! (for reasons I will prefer not to publicly expound until a decision has been made.)

Comment by makoyass on Should some variant of longtermism identify as a religion? · 2020-09-12T02:29:49.933Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

if long-termism were to embrace ritual, community, and other activities of religion, would long-termism benefit?

While that is worth asking, it's not the brunt of the question I'm wrestling with. I agree we should do more of that, I think that falls under the consequences of simply taking adequately seriously a system of claims that touch on many aspects of life, which doesn't necessarily need to be described as religious.

The question is, should we call it a religion now, or soon after a thorough account of its religion-like qualities is written, or should we only start calling it a religion if it is forced.

Physical community

I'm not sure how identifying as a religion would help, in that respect. I think it would make it harder to grow, at least in the current atmosphere, than just sticking with EA. I don't think it would make it easier to acquire physical churchehouses/community centers, but I should probably look into that more. Maybe talk to my Quaker friends.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-11T04:08:49.087Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Interested, could you recommend a desktop app made with flutter? Or something about what the rendering engine is made of on linux?

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-11T04:06:16.122Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

To clarify, stoners would misuse the tree tag, people looking for actual tree content wouldn't see any of that because they would not be using the stoner web to sort results.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-11T04:02:35.775Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Have you played The Witness? I've put your name on the beta list for crycog. I am looking for puzzle designers, but I should probably try bugging the friends I've already conscribed a few times before giving up on them. I have so far not tried bugging or in any way cajoling or hyping them so I should just see if it works at some point.

I'm wondering if there's much point in showing other people that game right now though. I'm not sure anyone believes there's going to be depth here but me and so there is no guarantee they'll be able to find it. This seems to be the case for most successful games. I hear the concept of something new and interesting and like, there will usually not be an intuition that says "ah yes I can see why that would work".

My intuition hates The Mind, for instance. I guess if someone asked me to contribute to a game like that though... maybe I'd say "okay this is for people with fewer tacit communication insights than me, I can do this condescendingly." That said, to be clear, I believe that I am right. I do earnestly believe I wouldn't be able to enjoy The Mind. You'd have to fight me to get me to try it.

 

The other game I'm developing is a tabletop game where basically... players have utility functions that act on an environment that they coexist in, violence is possible, they have to sort things out in such a way that it maximizes their own utility function. There is an emphasis on negotiation as a theory-heavy skill, as most games allow only one winner, every time the opponent gains you lose, there aren't very many games like this, and that's kind of shocking considering how normal in life this kind of situation is.

 

What sorts of stuff have you worked on? What sorts of things do you still want to create? (what are your absurd and unlikely design ambitions)

Comment by makoyass on Updates Thread · 2020-09-11T02:04:03.309Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Nintendo games often seem designed intentionally to be anti-addictive. Shallow systems to the point of only being desirable in short sessions, divided into chunks, wholesome in their explicit reminders to take frequent breaks, having clean endings.

An activity in an atmosphere as an occasional treatment for some malaise, perhaps.

Comment by makoyass on Updates Thread · 2020-09-11T02:00:51.824Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I don't think cancer is universal. I think it's a phenomenon of a level of evolutionary maturity where mutation sometimes has to come at the expense of sustainable accounting. Life may effectively transcend it, not absolutely, it is impossible to transcend it absolutely, but well enough.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-11T01:08:19.745Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I missed that era. Could you explain a bit more about webs of trust in google reader?

tag jokes

Wouldn't be tolerated, generally. Arborists would simply not have weed in their curation nets.

I'm sort of open to using subjective processes to assign tags their names. In this case, communities would tend to name their own tags, but outsiders, who find the name opaque or ambiguous, wouldn't have to put up with it. One thing that would enable is translating tags into different languages.

automatic generation of tags

I think how this will happen is, if a curation web splits, or forms an isolated component, some mostly automated ministry process will detect that, issue a recommendation to define a new tag or split a tag into more specific subgenres. Votes are taken, and the community decides whether they want to do that based on the results.

Weights

Meaning, degree of applicability? No. Tags would generally be predicates with clear meanings. Where different gradations of a quality need to be registered, multiple tags should be made along a continuum. I kind of want to write a lot about why taking the average of big crowds of error-ridden scores isn't usually (unless you're estimating the weight of a cow at a county fair) a great way of getting at an underlying truth about any real objective score they're supposed to reflect.

how tags are protected

When someone tags incorrectly, the people who endorsed them are supposed to unendorse them. If they fail to do that, their endorsers may unendorse them in turn.

There would emerge a few components in the scholarly consensus web that are dens of horseshit, but the presences in the (we hope) largest one will proactively disconnect themselves from those. The people who have real uses for a scholarly consensus clique would have little use for liars on the fringes, so once identified they'd mostly end up being ignored.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-10T11:06:49.521Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

My own pet idea is to let users have full control over their feed algorithm with a scripting language or something plus a generic Publish Subscribe infrastructure

I think about that concept a lot. I've been trying to avoid looking at it during this because it would require designing and implementing a programming language and that seems harder than just doing this without it.

But one day I really want to make a social network that just consists of remote reactive permissioned datatypes. Like, a social online programming shell/IDE + stuff for visualizing shared data. It would all just be typed data and the very thin, easily inspectable views people make for working it.

It might end up giving rise to some very janky systems, but it would be extremely fun and probably extremely useful to anyone who frequently needs to make online ad-hoc stuff.

Just to get things rolling - what business model do you see for it?

Free to read articles (hm unless... [1]). A monthly fee plus excess expenses (we'll measure the computational expenditures of each user to reduce the DDOS attack surface. Not sure how common practice that is, but it seems like an important art to develop. If we're ever going to make a social online shell it's going to need to be able to measure computational expendature very precisely and always to attribute it to the one who's really to blame for it.) once a user wants to write, or to run queries that might be a little bit expensive.

If there will be obligations to investors, the obligations need to have an expiration date. It doesn't have to come soon, but there has to be a constitutional commitment for the organization to, in the long-term, answer only to the mission of stewarding a productive global discourse.

What would be a proof of concept for it?

A fairly modular UI consisting of a way of looking at your presences, browsing webs, and opening views over your saved queries, I think

 

[1]: If we're taking a fee at all, it might make sense to support a thing where... some content is only made easily accessible to people who are paying a commons funding fee, which is kind of like subscribing to a platform like netflix only there is no central group deciding what your subscription fee is funding (unless there should be??), instead, you decide that. You're committed to funding the media ecosystem, but which parts you fund is up to you. This has a lot of benefits over traditional media funding models. It is more about gratitude than appeal. You pay after reading, not before. 

By default, it would just look at who you upvoted/applauded over the course of a month, and allocate your CFF in proportion to that, but you really ought to be able to divide it however you want.

Some amount of policing would be required to prevent the normalization of any process where a donee just paypals the cff they're allocated back to the users, which could be used by abusive users to access commons content without contributing anything to legitimate projects. (The more I think about this the less sure I am that there's any way to stop it. A ring of presences that post one (computer generated) haiku a month and send their income to exactly one user as long as they're receiving some. Outwardly following all the rules but inwardly complete crooked.)

Multiple payment levels of CFF might exist, with more and more exclusive content, although I'm not sure how elegantly that would ever work.

Comment by makoyass on The Mind: Board Game Review · 2020-09-10T09:53:52.979Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Yeah my feeling is... I know that we would develop some synchronization protocol and I'm not really curious about how that would happen. Developing protocols is more interesting when you can use words (because we always can, in life), or when there really is no communication at all (in which case we must sit and meditate only on the dao).

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-10T08:07:32.706Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I really appreciate having someone else who gets it summarize the concept with their own emphases added. Extremely helpful for figuring out how to communicate the thing.

 

Mm, so the Tag Trust way of presenting things would boil down like... users would implicitly have a presence associated with each tag, that resides in a web implicitly associated with each tag. (This is what -taste webs were about, btw, but it hadn't occurred to me til now that the existence of presences in those should always be implicit.)

Maybe users should be introduced to those sorts of single-tag webs before being told that using a web to curate more than one tag at the same time is possible, to prevent web overloading from breaking out sooner than it needs to. If web overloading only came from intermediate users that would be really good. Subcultures only, no platform superculture.

There might also be a concept of following a presence.

It might be beneficial to implement following as just endorsing them, in some way, from one of your presences, as endorsements contribute structure that other people can use (if they want to). Even if they're not very wise endorsements, they might be useful for some things while the web is growing. It's a way of getting people to start building on the structure without even needing to explain how it works.

 

Distinguishing the personal quality itself from the ability to recognize the quality in others

It seems like it would be good to have a type of trust relation that ignore the endorsed's endorsements, stopping the query frontier from propagating beyond them. The person you describe is sort of using the platform incorrectly though, I'm not sure it would turn out to be necessary.

If they know that their outputs are higher quality than their inputs, they should separate them (we should make it easy for them to separate them). If they care enough to make sure they only tag the really good stuff, wouldn't they then care enough to tag them with a curation presence (that endorses a different set of presences (or nobody) to their research presence) so that people can just subscribe to that instead.

Webs of similar topics should generally spring up along a continuum from decreasing breadth to increasing quality (for example, game releases are taken by enthusiastic consumers to the web game recommendations. Most people would only pay attention to game recommendations).

We could properly define "Curators" as users who have active presences in at least two separate webs, where the webs have the same overall topic, but one is more discerning.

Maybe that should be part of the UI. If two webs are considered to be on the same refinement continuum, it should be made visible, and it should be made easy for curators to tag articles along their different presences in the same continuum with a single action.

Whenever you're browsing under a tag, posts would have a button that lets you agree with the tag, applying it using the presence you're looking at it through. Maybe if you're browsing through a curator input presence that button does an additional thing, tagging it not just with the presence you're browsing with, but also with its corresponding curation presence in the next refinement level, so it would be more "promote" or "escalate". (related: if you are one of the pesky users who insists on using the general taste web, that button would tag it on your general taste presence too)

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-08T01:17:37.032Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I guess the software would end up supporting that way of using it. A friend set would be a presence that trusts your friends at 0.9 then is queried with a min_similarity of 0.9. (meaning, anyone they trust at strength less than 1 [if they're good bayesians, they wont trust anyone at 1!] will not appear in the results).

Another thing you could do, that might lead the recommendation network to grow a lot faster than traditional friend networks: You could have a general good taste web, post all of your content to your presence in that web, and use it to curate all of the tags you were interested in. I'm inclined to say that would be lazy, suboptimal, and not encouraged, but you could do it, it would work admirably well as a recommender system.

It would have an advantage over the traditional you only see the specific channels you follow thing in that friends wouldn't always have to hear about or spend time appraising their friends' new channels, in order for them to get seen and supported as soon as they're created. If you're interested in politics, then if a friend makes a politics alt, you'd see it automatically. The disadvantage of that, of course, is that taste is only general to a certain extent, a person with taste in epistemology might have terrible taste in politics. Maybe you like politics, but not how your friend does it. You could block their politics channel. If that isn't enough; have a politics presence that directly trusts the politics channels you definitely like, then have it only weakly trust your friend web, so that the automatic friends' politics stuff only comes up once you run out of the other stuff.

We should probably give that culture of usage a name. Maybe "overloaded web". A lot of the time it would be a pathology. You would be able to distinguish their content, using tags, but you wouldn't be able to distinguish the different kinds of endorsements they make, there would only be the one. That sucks. It might help to, for instance, make it really easy to submit any post tagged politics to both your general good taste presence and your politics-specific presence automatically, to make it easier to maintain them both.

 

I burned out fairly recently too. I worked on a game for two years before realizing I couldn't motivate myself to finish it. I then made a tiny game in a week, that helped a lot. It was more art than entertainment. It reminded me that I could make games that I really considered to be interesting, that showed me things I didn't already know (it was a little evolution sim.)

I'm now making two small but potent games that I think the world might really need and I am a lot more motivated... I don't think it's about their objective importance. It's probably really about being able to convey passion for the design to friends, who then visibly reciprocate it. That's probably what's doing it.

I imagine that might have been difficult for Arbital. It might be difficult for the above proposal too, it's all very abstract. It might be a good idea for me to sit down and write a short document that narrows in on all of the ways I expect Tastenet to reduce catastrophic existential risk by enabling the spread of useful information and decreasing political conflict. "It Might Kill Twitter" probably isn't enough to keep me going. We don't need a better faster twitter, we need something qualitatively different.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-08T00:10:27.840Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If there is a hierarchy of increasingly private spaces, IE, spaces where people who have great influence over the community can admit that they don't like the wreaking ouroboros consenses that are emerging and then decisively breach the consensus with a series of well aimed "calm down"s, that's the sort of community that wouldn't tend to have runaway repressive consensus problems unless those central people were letting them happen on purpose, and in what sorts of circumstance would they want to do that? My mind only goes to... well they did that in 1984, but of course that community of toxic surveillance was fictional and intuitively implausible in size and longevity.

Comment by makoyass on A Scalable Urban Design and the Single Building City · 2020-09-07T12:08:19.845Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I enjoyed the post. Very excited about cheap delivery infrastructure and vacuum garbage disposal! =3 Actually furious that it hasn't been made already!

I wonder if it would be possible to design an interior psuedoexterior space with very bright lighting and spacious open ceilings that would pretty much feel like being outdoors. It wouldn't have to pretend to be an outdoor space and paint the ceiling blue or anything like that, I've always found that creepy, but if you raise ceilings and light and ventilate well, maybe that would be enough? Residents would have to supplement their Vitamin D, as it's very unlikely that they'd be able to maintain the habit of visiting the surface gardens often enough, if the space worked properly. But most people probably need to supplement their Vitamin D regardless (especially during these trying times, by the way).

My main objection is that private ownership of urban land is totally incompatible with approaching an unboundedly low cost of living, as elaborated here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fnzZCq4XCeoWGPEp8/a-scalable-urban-design-and-the-single-building-city?commentId=RsctKt8Hpvyr4uZRS but most of your post is still useful even given that.

I have some thoughts about how to ensure that people end up being next to people they want to be next to... I think you do need a mechanism to arrange this. If you get rid of rent as a fitness-selector, haha, some people are going to want to replace that with something. But even without regards to that, a mechanism for this would be really useful for finding places you want, overcoming coordination problems of forming intentional communities, generally planning rearrangements of the city to maximize eudaimonia generation efficiency.

I guess I'll outline it. This is the Propinquity Cities concept:

  • Residents (who have funded, maybe up-front, a portion of the construction costs of the city, and pay rates) submit a sort of utility function over features of their dwelling and the types of people and services they want to be near to.
    • There will need to be some process for keeping accurate records about the features dwellings have. There should be an accurate, up to date list of all of the apartments that face east, have wooden floors, contain a red room etc. Ideally, this would be resident-driven. No one should be unable to find a home that meets any of their weird preferences as a result of some beurocrat not thinking that feature was worth keeping records on.
    • Hm the residents' preference functions could also be used to measure the population's desires and inform ongoing construction. Since all construction is managed by the city, that will be necessary.
  • The city has an aggregation function over those, which is essentially its occupancy law.
  • An open process run by the city awards a prize to the group who can produce the highest-scoring allocation of residents to allotments according to the city aggregation function over the resident's preference functions. The function also tries to avoid moving people around more often than is necessary. Most years (at least once the city has settled into things a bit), a person wont be moved.
  • Absolute pandemonium on moving day.
  • New intentional communities form in every corner of the city. Everyone is in a place where they want to be and are wanted. There is no rent to pay.
Comment by makoyass on A Scalable Urban Design and the Single Building City · 2020-09-07T10:28:08.880Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I may end up being unable to align with the Charter Cities Institute due to their stance on eminent domain. I hope the reasons are clear from the post, if not, I'll try to explain it fully. I guess I could do a little post about that. It seems to me that private ownership of land inevitably puts a limit on the affordability/value/qol of cities.

Traditional land ownership puts us in a situation where you must either constantly bleed money just to occupy space, or where you must pay price for land that takes into account its potential use as a device for constantly bleeding money from its occupants. Land is not elastic, so the prices aren't incentivising anything useful, except for producing density, but we can and probably should and maybe (to get ideal density) have to use other mechanisms to producing density. We can choose a legal system where those costs don't have to be paid by anyone. If we can buy enough rural land before prices go up, we might not even need the support of the state in order to implement that.

Okay no, I think that's a full explanation? I don't think I've ever said it that coherently before.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-07T06:12:23.214Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I could talk more about the unprecedented things I think would emerge, that don't resemble what already exists, but they might not believe me. What I can do is explain how it will compete well, if it must.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I want omegle but for idea jamming with intelligent people

Oh, I think my friend Demi Schanzel is working on something a lot like that. A project called "Solstice Cafe". It'll match you with random people on a recurring basis (if you seem to like each other) while trying to map out networks of compatibility. At least, that was a concept we discussed last time we got together. An example of the kind of thing they make, so that you can start getting excited.

We resolved that the system should probably name webs randomly. Those in the webs would quickly learn their meanings. As the webs mutate and diverge, the names would mutate and diverge too. The names would be used to tell you some basic things about the people you meet up front, so that you know what they'll be able to understand.

I think it will be absurdly powerful.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-07T05:54:41.163Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I've thought of another process it'll probably need. Moderation cases, generally requests that a presence be unendorsed by its endorsers, along with reasons why (a link to an offending article, for instance). For instance, a very straightforward case: If a presence is hacked and starts posting spam, anyone who saw that spam should make a moderation case which will be seen and dealt with by that presence's endorsers along the not a spambot web. If they fail to deal with a moderation order, they may be unendorsed themselves, as that would be the only way for the rest of the network to excise the offender, so they have pressure to be responsive.

  • These are stronger and more explicit than the dislike action. The everyday I don't think this person actually has good taste situations should just be communicated by accumulations of dislike signals. Perhaps there is a (client-side?) automatic process that notices those accumulations and produces a moderation order itself.
  • I've considered antiendorsements, but I don't think it would work neatly. Aside from complicating the properties of the web of trust data structure... there's an asymmetry where, an erroneous endorsement makes noise and screams to be fixed because you can see the bad articles that get into the web as a result of it, an erroneous anti-endorsement produces silence, it is unlikely to ever be fixed. A standard solution here is to have a time limit on blocks or mutes, but it might be better to just.. not have a feature that can lastingly screw someone over without having to explain why they were removed or ever come up for reconsideration.

As with everything else, anyone can make a moderation case about any presence's endorsement, but it will only be seen if the author (or the one who tagged it as moderation case) is in a web that the endorsers are listening to or respect.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-07T04:38:36.941Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

we can expect the real life to interfere with it. Self-censhorship, even compelled speech, on accounts that are publicly connected with your identify

I don't like it and wish it wasn't true.

If only we could go the simple way and just have basically everything be public while not acknowledging how insane that is (EG twitter).

But, I don't really see a reason to have personas be explicitly linked to the central persona. Hmm. Usually you'd want to give them a friend endorsement (proof of humanity), but if you had a friend who you trusted enough, maybe you could get them to do it, or maybe they'd go without. It occurs to me that it might be quite hard to go without, and of course, the friends you trust the most are going to end up visibly connected to you most of the time.

The question of whether privacy is a necessary thing in general is surprisingly complicated, imo. I guess I've had some real world experience of this since writing that. On twitter, there is indeed a terrifying emerging monoculture that might be the ideological prudishness of totalizing transparency, but also, everyone cool increasingly openly hates it. Maybe a real solution to this wouldn't be to prevent abusive cultures of monitoring and censorship, but to instate measures that accelerate their inevitable trajectory towards open lies, obvious insanity and self-canibalization, so that they burn down before getting too large.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-07T04:04:21.626Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Upvoted, because this is a thought a lot of people have, especially our sorts of people. I really ought to answer it. I have worried about accelerated community-formation exacerbating toxic tribalism for years, but I'm increasingly of the position that it's not a real problem at all. To the extent that it is, there are reasons to think that tools like this would not make it worse, and may help.

The one who wants to preach to their own choir influences no one. The political power that they seem to have is illusory. Even political parties in fully degenerated duocracies orient mostly around appealing to the median voter because those are the only ones whose minds are open to change. The one who doesn't seek out people who disagree with them learns very little, which weakens them in many ways. They wont have a very good time online, and the terrible things they try to do in the world wont work, because they wont know the world as it is. Eventually, most of them will realize on their own that they have to seek out people who believe strange and shocking things, if they want to see the interesting stuff.

In short, the people who build and engage in echo chambers are harmless, look more dangerous than they are, are ultimately probably not worth worrying about.

The intractable class of Facebook Boomers will soon literally die of old age. Exclusionary, hateful communities inevitably continuously alienate their own members and will be looked at by the rest of the world as a mistake.

There is an extent to which, tools for avoiding people we dislike, can make it possible for us to coexist with them. The people you wouldn't want to meet in a political venue, you may later meet on friendly terms somewhere else, and then maybe they'll have more of an interest in listening to you respectfully if politics ever comes up between you.

If you don't give people those tools, they might just leave the entire platform, (or exile the people they dislike) and build their own spaces, at which point there wont be barely any dialogue at all, and things will only get worse. I have a specific example in mind. When I meet the sorts of people who get pushed towards that place, it often feels like no adult has ever tried talking to them. They have been asking questions of people who didn't have the courage to answer them, they have been receiving no good answers and it has been driving them mad. I genuinely feel like under a system like what I've proposed, they would have found their way to us instead of the people who can only drive them mad, and when they asked their questions, instead of being given a load of hostility and conspiracy theories as answers, we would have given them the truth.

Could naming a formerly unnamed distinction (as naming territories in organically splitting webs would do) create conflict between them? I don't think this is the case. When a web splits, we don't have to frame this as a conflict, we can also frame it as the creation of a conceptual distinction between two content categories that were formerly being confused. When people think that they're disagreeing about one thing, that is a much worse state of conflict than when they have come to agree that they just want two different things. The conflict is not created by the split, it is revealed, it was there wreaking before we had words for the sides, knowing about it doesn't make it worse, common misconception.

Once the sides can describe what really differentiates them, once everyone's desires are out on the table, they can arrange terms, they can negotiate, and only then can they really figure out how to come back together, or whether they even should.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-07T00:57:53.648Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Regarding Administrative Burden:

There are reasons to think that administrative burden might turn out to be very light, for a lot of webs:

  • If you trust just three people, and if they trust just three people, and so on, that could conceivably get you a very large userset with very little effort on the parts of each person. The question is, how do each of those people discover the others? How do you get into a network? Do you form a portfolio of submissions, proof of humanity, then issue join requests to the curators who know you the best? Yeah, that should probably be common pattern!
  • You don't need to maintain an active presence in a web in order to make use of it. Somewhere there is a small community of people who are obsessed with vacuum cleaner reviews. To get an extremely well curated set of vacuum reviews, all you need to do is find them and include one of their central figures in a query over them.
    • I propose governance communities (maybe funded by the project) like metacurators to aid people in finding those communities. As an experiment, I recently tried to find "train twitter", knowing that such a community almost certainly exists. I couldn't. There were actually lots of results for the search "train twitter", but all that and a whole hour weren't enough to find me to it. Measures will probably need to be taken.

adjusting weights over time based on your usage

I like that one, that could be one of the things the above mentioned, very simple like/dislike ("relevant"/"irrelevant") actions cause to happen.

It would be interesting to see what happens if you fully automate the formation of webs based just on users' liking/tagging interactions, whether we'd end up with a perfectly good automatic recommender system that's also perfectly accountable/controllable. It's not clear to me that we would need automation for the first version, or for the types of users who'd use a first version of anything.

Comment by makoyass on Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust · 2020-09-07T00:40:33.189Z · score: 7 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Regarding Vagueness:

It's not vague, it's general! =). But also yes the UX is a bit vague and just incomplete. We could probably characterize it a bit more clearly by listing the kinds of queries/views/activities it supports. For some users, a thin frontend for learning and running various types of queries will be all they really want.

  • polling, fetching news: Show everything in tag from my presence in a web, that has been posted within date range
  • replying: view the replies to an article (and some of the replies to the replies) that are qualified by a particular web (this should enable every conceivable demographic to find a commentariate that they like and want to engage with, which would be pretty darn neat)
  • notifications: View recent replies to my articles (or articles I've subscribed to) from presences in the web reachable from my presence, or submission requests. Other things, probably.
  • chatting: (I didn't mention this at all) seeing a realtime view that is focused on one head of a reply chain and its most recent branches. Probably eventually offer an additional view that shows other active chats you might be interested based on their topic tags and the participants involved. There should not need to be a firm distinction between asynchronous discussion venues and chat venues and I believe we can open a channel between them!
  • processes and views for promoting the creation of new tags, the formation of new webs: Legitimately vague, I don't know how this should be done, I've mainly been asking how to enable good networks to exist and sustain themselves over time (the answers are: specificity of purpose, and accountably inheriting trust), the question of how to accelerate the formation or reshaping of the network might be a whole other component of the problem.
Comment by makoyass on The Best Virtual Worlds for "Hanging Out" · 2020-09-06T02:18:07.535Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Hmm I think online town is now https://gather.town/ . I wonder why they yielded the old domain. I hope they realize that they never had to pay a registrar's renewal fee, as they can always transfer the domain to another registrar that has a different fee.

Comment by makoyass on misc raw responses to a tract of Critical Rationalism · 2020-09-05T10:39:03.147Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

A lot of people seemed to like Beginning of Infinity.

Comment by makoyass on Objective Dog Ratings: An Introduction & Explanation · 2020-09-04T23:45:48.059Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

A post about the horror of the existence of dogs and wow this is part of my political ideology now https://dormin.org/2020/03/21/against-dog-ownership/

I hope you're going to be talking about whether the dog breeds are emotionally independent enough to enjoy being alive on balance.

Non-rationalists will not understand because they are not willing or able to face the true nature of dogs.

Comment by makoyass on Objective Dog Ratings: The Irish Wolfhound · 2020-09-03T02:40:51.112Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

[looking at pictures] there's a very high degree of Houndness here. I can imagine a point in dogspace with higher Houndness than this but I don't know that I've ever measured one.

Comment by makoyass on TurnTrout's shortform feed · 2020-08-31T02:39:48.128Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

It would be interesting to see a more long-term study about habits around processing anger.

For instance, randomly assigning people different advice about processing anger (likely to have quite an impact on them, I don't think the average person receives much advice in that class) and then checking in on them a few years later and ask them things like, how many enemies they have, how many enemies they've successfully defeated, how many of their interpersonal issues they resolve successfully?

Comment by makoyass on ozziegooen's Shortform · 2020-08-31T02:10:39.577Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I suspect there's a limit on how good at truthseeking individualism can make people. Good information is a commons, its sum value is greater the more it is shared, it is not funded in proportion to its potential, under economies of atomized decisions.

We need a political theory of due deference to expertise. Wherever experts fail, or the wrong experts are appointed, or where a layperson on the ground stops believing that experts are even identifiable, there is work to be done.

Comment by makoyass on MikkW's Shortform · 2020-08-31T02:04:50.127Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

It would be interesting to see the efficiency of solar + direct air capture compared to plants. If it wins I will have another thing to yell at hippies (before yelling about there not being enough land area even for solar)

Comment by makoyass on MakoYass's Shortform · 2020-08-31T01:50:25.590Z · score: 9 (3 votes) · LW · GW

There's a lot of "neuralink will make it easier to solve the alignment problem" stuff going around the mainstream internet right now in response to neuralink's recent demo.

I'm inclined to agree with Eliezer, that seems wrong; either AGI will be aligned in which case it will make its own neuralink and wont need ours, or it will be unaligned and you really wouldn't want to connect with it. You can't make horses competitive with cars by giving them exoskeletons.

But, is there much of a reason to push back against this?

Providing humans with cognitive augmentation probably would help to solve the alignment problem, in a bunch of indirect ways.

It doesn't seem like a dangerous error at all. It feeds a public desire to understand how AGI might work. Neuralink itself is a great project for medical science. Generally, wrong beliefs cause bad consequences, but I'm having difficulty seeing what they'd be here.

Comment by makoyass on The Mirror Chamber: A short story exploring the anthropic measure function and why it can matter · 2020-08-30T04:02:18.262Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

having no memories of being on the wrong side does not make this any more pleasant an experience to go through, nor does it provide any reassurance against being the replica (presuming that's the one which is killed

It provides no real reassurance, but it would make it a more pleasant experience to go through. The effect of having observed the coin landing heads many times and never tails, is going to make it instinctively easy to let go of your fear of tails.

Um okay, wouldn't they have maybe thought about this after 15 years of training and decades of practice in the field?

Possibly! I'm not sure how realistic that part is, to come to that realization while the thing is happening instead of long before, but it was kind of needed for the story. It's at least conceivable that the academic culture of the consenters was always a bit inadequate, maybe Nai had heard murmurings about this before, then the murmurer quietly left the industry and the Nais didn't take it seriously until they were living it.

I don't think we've established sufficiently that the 3 minds 1 brain thing are actually 3 minds

The odds don't have to be as high as 3:1 for the decision to come out the same way.

Holy shit this society is dystopic.

The horrors of collectively acknowledging that the accessible universe's resources are finite and that growth must be governed in order to prevent malthus from coming back? Or is it more about the beurocracy of it, yeah, you'd really hope they'd be able to make exceptions for situations like this, hahaha (but, lacking an AGI singleton, my odds for society still having legal systems with this degree of rigidity are honestly genuinely pretty high, like yeah, uh, human societies are bad, it's always been bad, it is bad right now, it feels normal if you live under it, you Respect The History and imagine it couldn't be any other way)

Wouldn't this be an abdication of responsibility as mentioned in the prev paragraph?

An abdication of the expectations of an employer, much less than an abdication of the law. Transfers to other substrates with the destruction of the original copy are legal, probably even commonplace in many communities.

I think this section is really confusing. They're talking about killing the original, which the chamber is not set up to do, but they have an idea as to how to do it. The replica is just a brain, they will only experience impaling their brain with a rod and it wouldn't actually happen. They would be sitting there with their brain leaking out while somehow still conscious.

omit "act of", sorta redundant.

Praxis consists of many actions, the reaction was very much towards this specific act, this is when people noticed.

If that was the case then it would have been an issue going smaller and smaller to begin with, right?

They only started saying things like this after the event. Beforehand it would have been very easy to deny that there was an issue. Those with smaller brains had the same size bodies as everyone else, just as much political power, exactly the same behaviours.

She's only done this 4 times now?

The other names are from different aspects of life. Some given by parents, some taken on as part of coming of age. Normally a person wouldn't take on names from executing a mirror chamber, in this case it was because it was such a significant event and a lot of people came to know Nai as Paper from the mirror chamber transcript.

looks like partial mind reading or something

It's because a lot of their macrostate is still in sync. This is a common experience in mirror chambers, so they don't remark on it.

It certainly is about measures.

Well that sounds interesting. Measure theory is probably going to be crucial for getting firm answers to a lot of the questions I've come to feel responsible for. Not just anthropics, there's some simulist multiverse stuff as well..

I don't think this is rational FYI

How so?

I should probably mention, if I were just shoved into that situation... We probably wouldn't kill the original. I wouldn't especially care about having reduced measure or existing less, because I consider myself a steward of the eschaton rather than a creature of it, if anything, my anthropic measure should be decreased as much as possible so that the painful path of meaning and service that I have chosen has less of an impact on the beauty of the sum work. Does that make sense? If not never mind it's not so important.

I'm going to need to find a way to justify making Paper and Scissors less ingroupy in the way they talk to each other, the premise that we would be able to eavesdrop a conversation between a philosopher and a copy of that philosopher and understand what they were on about is kind of not plausible and it comes through here. Maybe I should just not report the contents of the conversation, or turn that up to an extreme, have everything they say be comically terse and idiolectic, then explain it after the fact. Actually yes I think that would be great. Intimacy giving rise to ideolect needs to be depicted more.

Comment by makoyass on misc raw responses to a tract of Critical Rationalism · 2020-08-30T02:50:35.186Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

pets

I think you'd probably consider the way we approach problems of this scale to be popperian in character. We open ourselves to lots of claims and talk about them and criticize them. We try to work them into a complete picture of all of the options and then pick the best one, according to a metric that is not quite utility, because the desire for a pet is unlikely to be an intrinsic one.

The gun to our head in this situation is our mortality or aging that will eventually close the window of opportunity to enjoying having a pet.

I'm not sure how to relate to this as an analytical epistemological method, though. Most of the work, for me, would involve sitting with my desire for a pet and interrogating it, knowing that it isn't at all immediately clear why I want one. I would try to see if it was a malformed expression of hunting or farming instincts. If I found that it was, the desire would dissipate, the impulse would recognize that it wouldn't get me closer to the thing that it wants.

Barring that, I would be inclined to focus on dogs, because I know that no other companion animal has evolved to live alongside humans and enjoy it in the same way that dogs have. I'm not sure where that resolution came from.

What I'm getting at is that most of the interesting parts of this problem are inarticulable. Looking for opportunities to apply analytic methods or articulable epistemic processes doesn't seem interesting to me at all.

A reasonable person's approach to solving most problems right now is to ask a a huge machine learning system that nobody understands to recommend some articles from an incomprehensibly huge set of people.

Real world examples of decisionmaking generally aren't solvable, or reducible to optimal methods.

 

belief

Do I believe in mathematics.. I can question the applicability of a mathematical model to a situation.

It's probably worth mentioning that even mathematical claims aren't beyond doubt, as mathematical claims can be arrived at in error (cosmic rays flipping bits) and it's important that we're able to notice and revert our position when that happens.

 

 

risable

My impression from observed usage was that "risable" meant "spurious, inspiring anger". Finding that the dictionary definition of a word disagrees with natural impressions of it is a very common experience for me. I could just stop using words I've never explicitly looked up the meaning of, but that doesn't seem ideal. I'm starting to wonder if dictionaries are the problem. Maybe there aren't supposed to be dictionaries. Maybe there's something very unnatural about them and they're preventing linguistic evolution that would have been useful. OTOH, there is also something very unnatural about a single language being spoken by like a billion humans or whatever it is, and English's unnaturally large vocabulary should probably be celebrated.

To clarify, it makes me angry to see someone assuming moral realism with such confidence that they might declare the most important industrial safety project in the history of humanity to be a foolish waste of time. The claim that there could be single objectively correct human morality is not compatible with anthropology, human history, nor the present political reality. It could still be true, but it is not sufficed, there is not sufficient reason to act as if it is definitely true. There should be more humility here than there is.

My first impression of a person who then goes on to claim that there is an objective, not just human, but universal morality that could bring unaligned machines into harmony with humanity is that they are lying to sell books. This is probably not the case, lying about that would be very stupid, but it's a hypothesis that I have to take seriously. When a person says something like that, it has the air of a preacher who is telling a nice lie that they think will endear them to people and bring together a pleasant congregation around that unifying myth of the objectively correct universal morality, and maybe it will, but they need to find a different myth, because this one will endanger everything they value.

I haven't read BoI. I've been thinking about it.

Comment by makoyass on Principia Compat. The potential Importance of Multiverse Theory · 2020-08-29T05:00:02.123Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Newcomblike decision theory is the wishful thinking that makes itself correct after all. It is the consciously designed and rationally chosen self-fulfilling prophesy. It is the myths that hold society together even now.

Comment by makoyass on Principia Compat. The potential Importance of Multiverse Theory · 2020-08-29T04:57:29.276Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I think I see what the misunderstanding here was. I was assuming that simulations would tend to have simpler laws of physics than their host universe (more like Conway's Game of Life than Space Sim), which would mean that eventually the most deeply nested simulations would depict universes where the laws of physics don't practically support computers (I'd conject that a computer made under the life-level physics of Conway's Game of Life (a bigger, stickier level than the level we interact with it on) would probably be a lot larger and more expensive than ours are, although I don't know if anyone could prove that, or argue that persuasively. Maybe Steve Wolfram), and it would bottom out.

While you were assuming a definition of simulation that is a lot closer to the common meaning of simulation, an approximation of the laws of physics that we have, which makes a lot of sense, and is probably a more realistic model of the kinds of simulations that simulators simulating in earnest are likely to want to run, so I think you brought a good point.

Maybe the lower levels of the simulation would tend to be falsified. The simulated simulators report having seen a real simulation in there, they remember having confirmed it, but really it's just reports and memories.

(note, at this point, in 2020, I don't think the accounting of compat adds up. Basically this implies that we can't get more measure than we spend by trading up.)

Comment by makoyass on Investment is a useful societal mechanism for getting new things made. Stock trading shares some functionality with investment, but seems very very inefficient, at that? · 2020-08-27T04:25:08.968Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I'm unsure what problem you are trying to solve with your proposal for investors to pay money to the companies they own shares of

 

It was "Could we get that money to do something better, then?"

It is possible for speculation to be rewarded more than is useful, I suspect that it's quite common.

Powerful unaccountable people are not a thing I want running around in society.

A part of me laughs at the idea of holding tech accountable and prepares for the ending where it is not, could not be.

I engaged in some corporate governance yesterday and... I don't think this one at least was designed to make the company accountable to shareholders, parts of it seemed chosen to preclude that. I think they give an impression of accountability, which must be reassuring to some people. One big advantage I sense is to the company; the governance process solicits motivated feedback from many parties. They will ultimately use the feedback however it benefits them.

Comment by makoyass on misc raw responses to a tract of Critical Rationalism · 2020-08-24T13:40:52.814Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

It's worse than that: SI doesn't even try to build a meaningful ontological model.

Hm, does it need one?

Why can't it be both?

I think that's what I said.

So the first definition is what?

Again, "what was, will continue". DD says something about real years never having started with 20 therefore the year 2000 wont happen, which seems to refute it as a complete specification, but on reflection I just feel like he understood it in an overly crude way because he wasn't thinking in a probabilistic way about managing the coexistence of competing theories that agree with past data but make different predictions about the future, and he still probably doesn't have that.

The reality is, you actually aren't supposed to have certainty that the year 2000 will happen, 0 and 1 are not real probabilities etc

Comment by makoyass on MakoYass's Shortform · 2020-08-24T13:08:28.888Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I think I'm saying those are going to to turn out to be the same thing, though I'm not sure exactly where that intuition is coming from yet. Could be wrong.

Comment by makoyass on MakoYass's Shortform · 2020-08-24T13:05:13.751Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

That's a well constructed example I think, but no that seems to be a completely different sense of "indexical". The concept of indexical uncertainty we're interested in is... I think... uncertainty about which kind of body or position in the universe your seat of consciousness is in, given that there could be more than one. The Sleeping Beauty problem is the most widely known example. The mirror chamber was another example.